"You aim at a devout life, dear Philothea, because as a Christian you know that such devotion is most acceptable to God's Divine Majesty," says St. Francis de Sales in his book "Introduction to the Devout Life".
And we can all be Philotheas, as St. Francis notes: "I have made use of a name suitable to all who seek the devout life, Philothea meaning one who loves God."

Pages

Thursday, April 26, 2012

On Clarifying the Licit Use of NFP

Because of the big brouhaha over the contraception
mandate, there’s been a lot of news commentary the last few weeks on the
subject of NFP (Natural Family Planning).

Prior to February 14, I would have applauded the
coverage, agreed with it, promoted NFP in a few blog posts, and felt really
good about the whole thing. I learned about NFP after I became Catholic, and by
that time, I’d had myself sterilized, and was approaching the end of my child-bearing
years anyway. What I read of NFP sounded very good for the relationship of
spouses, and appeared to be “acceptable” to the mind of the Church. I regretted
never having had the chance to use it in my marriage.

But that was then, and this is now, and my views on NFP
have changed radically.

On February 14, I received an email from a friend with a
link to a homily on “The Duty of Motherhood” (which I have since transcribed
and posted here). The message said:

I don't know if NFP has risen
to the level of "hot button" for you, yet, but some day it will.
Theology of the Body and Natural Family Planning will, one day, be viewed from
their rightful home in the trash bin of theological fads that did great harm to
the Church and Her faithful.

Just ask yourself: "Can I
picture Our Blessed Mother teaching young Jewish maidens to 'chart' so as to
avoid conceiving a child (or "charting" AT ALL!) and can I hear TOB
language coming from her mouth?" BOTH invite embarrassing forays into
immodesty and impurity. The questions answer themselves, providing
"insight" into what a pandering to our hyper-sexualized culture this
has really been (under the guise of "spirituality" and
"responsible parenthood").

I
admit, I was a bit taken aback. I didn’t know there was something wrong with
NFP! I did some thinking and some reading.

And I
think NFP is…well…very much misused
and misrepresented. And I suspect it
is largely practiced from a contraceptive mindset, even by faithful Catholic couples who perhaps have not fully investigated their own motives or fears.

NFP is
painted in glowing terms by its supporters: it strengthens marriage, it
encourages “communication” between husband and wife, it’s correlated with a
lower divorce rate, and it’s “healthy”. These claims may be true, but if NFP is
being used for the wrong reasons, then these wonderful outcomes are not
justified. It is not permissible to do evil that good may come of it.

NFP is
also very often presented as “acceptable to the Church”. This is implied when
parish marriage prep classes insist on the couple learning about NFP. Linking
NFP so closely to marriage preparation sends a contraceptive message, I believe.
Yes, I know that NFP can be used quite successfully to achieve pregnancy, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority
of couples who put it into use do so in order to “space births” within their
family. The message they’ve received is that it is fine and dandy to choose a
family size and limit the number of children to be born based on perceived
financial ability to support them, stress on the parents, medical concerns, and
a variety of other reasons.

That
does not speak of a great trust in God, does it? What about Divine Providence?
Is God not capable of taking care of the problems we as human parents cannot?

An article
from Catholic News Agency quotes Dr. Janet E. Smith on the subject of NFP. I’ve
listened to Dr. Smith’s talk “Contraception: Why Not?” and found it very informative;
however, I have come to disagree with her take on the validity of using NFP for
the end of spacing births and limiting family size. According to the CNA article,

Smith told
CNA on April 18 that Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not an obligation to
“live without planning,” but a call to use reason while respecting the nature
of human sexuality.

Supported by the Catholic Church, NFP is a method of spacing children by practicing
periodic abstinence based on physical indicators of a woman’s fertility.

I think
that it is a misrepresentation to say that NFP is “supported by the Catholic
Church”. I think “tolerated” is a more accurate descriptor, if we want to be
perfectly honest about what the Church teaches.

As I mentioned in a previous post, NFP or
periodic continence can only lawfully be practiced without sin for serious reasons or "just
causes", according to Pope Pius XII inhis “Address
to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives" from 1951. [Fr. Ryan Erlenbush makes
the point that these terms are often misstated by NFP opponents as “grave”
reasons, and that in Humanae Vitae,
the term used is the Latin phrase “justae
causae”, or “just cause”.] Pope Pius XII mentioned and described “medical,
eugenic, economic, and social” reasons for periodic continence. Pope Paul VI
said that periodic continence could be justified if there are “well-grounded
reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological
condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances” (HV, 16).

In the CNA
article, Dr. Smith is noted to have said that

Despite
the cultural assumption that Catholics are required to ceaselessly procreate,
Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical “Humanae Vitae” clarified that there are
“serious reasons” for which a couple may seek to avoid conception “for either a
certain or an indefinite period of time.”

The
spectrum of these reasons “is broader
and perhaps more liberal than many think,” said Smith.

I think there is great danger in that kind of counseling,
and I think that what passes for “serious reason” can vary depending on the
trends of the times – because our human perception of “serious” is certainly conditioned
by the circumstances in which we live.

She noted
that the Church calls married couples to use
prudence in examining their physical, psychological, and financial
conditions as well as other factors when looking at the future of their
families.

Couples
should not be selfish in their decision, and they are called to look “beyond
their own comfort and convenience,” but they can morally use NFP to prevent conception for a variety of reasons beyond
mere health concerns, she said.

But Humanae Vitae makes mention several
times of the importance of seeking God’s will, not our own, in matters of
limiting family size. For instance:

[Parents] are not free to act as they choose in the service of
transmitting life, as if it were wholly
up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary,
they are bound to ensure that what they do
corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the
constant teaching of the Church spells it out.(HV, 10)

And here:

The Church is the first to
praise and commend the application of
human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man
is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order
of reality established by God. (HV, 16)

I will pause here, and call this “Part I” of a series on
NFP. I think there is much to be discussed, and that it should be discussed by the well-meaning, faithful Catholics on both
sides of the NFP issue.

For now, I’ll leave you with this thought, a comment on the last post by Fr. William Gardner:

The truly Catholic alternative
to contraceptive drugs, devices, surgeries is babies! All those with a priestly
heart should pray for greater generosity among married couples in welcoming
souls to "come to the threshold of life."

I hope to examine some of Fr. Gardner’s thoughts as
reflected in his articles on the subject…next time.

52 comments:

Thank you for this. You obviously took a look at the article link I sent you. You do such a wonderful job of calmly and clearly presenting the teachings of our Faith ~ much, much better than my rantings and emotional reactions!

Fr. Gardner's statement at the end says it all, doesn't it? I loved reading his words.

God bless you and God bless Fr. Gardner and all the other good, holy priests who speak the truth to us!

Hahaha, Elizabeth! Most who know me would characterize me more along the lines of a ranter and raver! But in writing I can control myself a little bit, anyway. Thanks for your vote of confidence! Feel free to email me, too. drjayboyd@msn.com

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this series of posts on NFP! My husband & I (revert & convert) have long been bothered by the prevalent acceptance of this as the "Catholic way" of limiting family size.

I tend to get progressively hypertensive during pregnancy & had 2 heart attacks within 36 hours of delivering our 4th child 7 years ago, so we reluctantly practiced NFP for almost a year afterward (until I was off of the mountain of medications they put me on). We were truly saddened by the reaction of most of our family (not to mention my cardiologist & OB/GYN) to our decision to use no form of birth control after that point.

We seem to have lost the sense that each child is a potential new inhabitant of Heaven. That God allows us the formidable power to use our free will to block His ability to create a new immortal soul is something that should make our conscience quake.

I think you're off base on several points. The Church has stated, quite clearly, that spacing pregnancy is not objectively immoral as long as moral methods are used (i.e., NFP), and that there is just cause to do so (just cause is to be discerned by the couple, preferably with the aid of an orthodox spiritual director). This article, "Is NFP a Heresy?" by Fr. Brian Harrison goes into more detail: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

I have been pregnant six times; I have four children on earth and two in heaven. I'd say my husband and I use NFP to achieve and avoid equally, but at all times we're open to God's will; we're just using His design for our fertility to licitly space pregnancies, with careful discernment depending on our individual circumstances, just as the Church permits us to do.

You are woman after my own heart. I think what has happened is that in an effort to encourage contracepting couples who can't wrap their heads around the idea of a large family to use nfp, ordinary Catholic couples who would just not worry and have children (well, I'm not sure its possible not to worry) now have a huge guilt trip put on them. I also think that NFP can be marriage building for couples with a contraceptive mentality but that generously having a big family can be marriage building too. I am also sick of neo phyte Catholics and reverts who haven't read anything before Vatican II preaching to the rest of us about the benefits of nfp.

When you have a situation that, a tiny percentage of Catholic couples even use NFP, the majority are using contraception, you are only adding fuel to the fire by posting something like this.

The Church in her wisdom, allows NFP. It will never go to the trash heap, as your friend is hoping. Your friend does not understand the Church's teaching. The reasons a couple decides to use NFP are, frankly, between them and God. I think it would be wise if we spent less time worrying (read: judging!) about if couple A is using NFP with a "contraceptive mentality" and instead be worried more about our own parenting-- procreation is only *one part* of the equation-- the easy, pleasurable part. IF we birth many children but neglect their *education in the faith* and their souls are lost to hell, are you still more holy than couple B, who had only 2 children and their children's souls are going to heaven?

Do not judge, lest ye be judged. Leave prudential decisions to the couple and don't presume they are misusing NFP if they have a small family or it's been 4 years since the last child was born....Mind your own spiritual life!

Wow, That's kind of a weird supposition and mean, too.Discussing the proper use of nfp is not judging. The Church certainly allows nfp and it would be wrong to judge. But there are a lot of anti-family forces at work in our culture that influence people. It's something that people need to revisit from time to time.IMHO the anti large famiy attitude among certain nfp promoters does far more harm to fallen away Catholics than a few people discussing valid reasons to avoid a pregnancy.

And what is a proper use of NFP? I have NEVER met an NFP promoter who has had a anti-large family attitude. Not once.

I have, however, met lots of large families who leave fertility up to Providence, whether by weakness of inability to abstain or by true conviction, who do JUDGE people who use NFP and wonder if those reasons are sufficiently GRAVE or VALID.

Here's a suggestion: Pray about your *own* marriages and families. Pray to be good EDUCATORS of your children-- procreation is the easy part. Raising children with virtue is HARD. Raising children who remain Catholic and make it to heaven is HARD. And, every time you want validation for your decisions to have a large family by *judging those "NFP promoters"* ask God to give you the grace to focus on the log in your own eye/parenting and let Him and His grace take care of your friends.

Look, I am not against NFP and I have met nfp promoters who are anti-big family. Look at the terms you are using. "Providentialist." What does that mean? Everyone needs to stop talking about their feelings. You put it like its either/or. Either you use nfp and spend more quality time with your kids or they will go to hell. Good grief. You shouldn't judge either. If you are a good parent to a a small number of children you will probably be a good parent to a large number and if you are bad to one, then you will be bad to a ten. Don't mix up TOB and the interpretation of TOB. They are two different things. And there are lots of previous documents. TOB has to be understood in reference to previous encyclicals.

Thank you for your post. I agree with you. It's good to find other Catholics who don't think those of us who are not practicing NFP in any way are not just being irresponsible or insane or whatever other implications there are.

Dr. Boyd presents, in a positive light, this from a friend's e-mail: "Theology of the Body and Natural Family Planning will, one day, be viewed from their rightful home in the trash bin of theological fads that did great harm to the Church and Her faithful." She characterizes her response this way: "I admit, I was a bit taken aback. I didn’t know there was something wrong with NFP!" She might better have responded: "I admit, I was a bit taken aback. I thought that the Theology of the Body was the infallible teaching of Blessed Pope John Paul II."

I'm disappointed that so far none of the followers of her blog have commented on this. The Theology of the Body is one of the treasures of the Church and a much needed corrective. It will never be relegated to the trash bin. Whether Dr. Boyd or her friend like it or not, it was the deliberate and systematic teaching of our pope (who was incapable of teaching error in faith or morals), a teaching later expounded upon further in many of his encyclicals. Who would have guessed that Blessed Pope John Paul II spent five years and 129 general audience addresses nurturing a fad?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

And what about NFP? Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae makes it crystal clear that the principles of Natural Family Planning are absolutely distinct from artificial birth control. This is the distinction that Dr. Boyd seeks to muddy. It may be a worthwhile thing to remind people of what the licit use of NFP is, but no one is served by her overstatement of the case: "I think that it is a misrepresentation to say that NFP is 'supported by the Catholic Church'. I think 'tolerated' is a more accurate descriptor, if we want to be perfectly honest about what the Church teaches. " No, the Church does not merely tolerate NFP. Here is Pope Paul VI:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

In the following document, Blessed Pope John Paul II specifically addresses NFP and also makes it very clear that the Catholic Church does more than merely tolerate this practice "if we want to be perfectly honest about what the Church teaches" as Dr. Boyd says:

I thought that the Theology of the Body was the infallible teaching of Blessed Pope John Paul II

TOB is infallible? I really don't know one way or the other, but I thought it was more along the lines of theological exposition on JPII's part, much like the "Jesus of Nazareth" series by BXVI, rather than a formal theological pronouncement. But I can certainly be mistaken on that point.

From the HV excerpt above, it seems what the Church is saying is that NFP, as a means, is morally neutral - neither good nor bad in itself (compared to artificial contraception, which is an immoral means). Thus, the intentions in using NFP is what affects the moral calculus. So, in a sense, it is more accurate to say the Church tolerates (i.e., allows) the practice. In short, NFP is in a sense, medicine, not food. The danger is that it can too easily be confused as food, particularly in our contraception saturated culture.

Yes NFP is not simply "tolerated"....nor is it or TOB to end up anywhere except as authentic and noble theological realities.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-23692399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

Just a brief comment to Mark re TOB:I believe my friend was referring to (and I took it as referring to) not so much JPII's exposition of TOB, but to the interpretation and implementation of it furthered primarily by Christopher West. While I was for some time a big fan of West's, the criticisms that came to be directed against him by Alice Von Hildebrand and others seemed to carry some weight. West himself of course went on sabbatical to reexamine his thinking. I have his new book, but have not yet read it. The other issue - whether NFP is "contraception" or not - will be addressed in further posts on the blog.

In my first reading, I thought it possible that your friend was referring to the popular presentation of the Theology of the Body. But simply saying that the TOB and NFP are theological fads headed for the trash bin implies more than that. Whatever your friend meant, I believe it was irresponsible of you not to make this distinction. You describe yourself as someone who often fails to be charitable, but who is rigorous in defending the teaching of the Church. What I've seen with this post is just the opposite. You've been very cordial (and I appreciate that), but you have flatly contradicted Church teaching on these issues as evidenced in the numerous papal documents cited here recently.

As for Dr. Alice von Hildebrand's critique of Christopher West, below is an excellent rebuttal from Dr. Janet E. Smith. Dr. Smith admires both writers, but makes a strong case that in this instance Dr. von Hildebrand has not read West carefully or treated him fairly.

Von Hildebrand makes some good points about modesty, I think, which is an important virtue, too.

West's interpretation of JPII's TOB is what's in question more than JPII's actual writings, I think. And West does go a little off the deep end with some of the things he teaches about some sexual acts. When he waffles on some aspects of Church teaching, he encourages an attitude of "how far can I go without actually committing a sin".Even if he doesn't mean to do this, he has to be careful in how he presents his thoughts in questionable areas.

I think we already have clear teaching from Pope Paul VI and Holy Mother Church that NFP is not contraception. No further posts will be needed.

I have a friend with two children who is a good Catholic. She struggles with endometriosis and has frequently mentioned that she feels "judged" by pius, large family Providentialists types who eye her with suspicion and wonder if she is practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality.

Another couple struggles with addiction in the spouse that others do no know about-- many people keep kinds of these skeletons to themselves.

The bottom line is you don't know what goes on in other peoples marriages. Family size is to be discerned by the couple and God alone. Why do you suppose the church is so vague about "reasons for using NFP'? Precisely because it is a prudential decision and the reasons are a wide and varied as the people in those marriages.

If you want to say artificial contraception is wrong. Great! If you want to say, we should pray to be generous in welcoming offspring, Wonderful! IF you want to blog in a high and mighty way that you think most people are using NFP in a contraceptive manner or abusing NFP, you've crossed a line, BIG TIME. You do realize NFP requires sacrifice and self-denial. P eople don't use NFP lightly. I think you owe everyone a retraction and apology for spreading error and misinformation.

You know what. NFP should require sacrifice and self-denial. Because as hard as nfp its nothing compared to raising a child which is a lifelong commitment. Either way there is sacrifice and self denial.

We have clear teaching that the NFP method is not immoral in itself. That does not mean it cannot be used for immoral ends.

I think many of you are taking this a bit personally. The discussion is about the abstract, what types of issues, attitudes, situations could indicate a perhaps less than generous intention on the part of the couple. Precisely because the teaching is rather vague on this point, this type of discussion is needed. If the Church clearly spelled out situations A, B, and C are acceptable, but D, E, and F are not, we wouldn't need this discussion. No one is judging anyone in particular, but discussing the parameters in the abstract. Hence the beam/splinter admonition is not applicable. Be not afraid to discuss - people are so intimidated by being labelled - gasp - "judgmental", that you can't even have a rational discussion anymore. Geesh.

"And I think NFP is…well…very much misused and misrepresented. And I suspect it is largely practiced from a contraceptive mindset, even by faithful Catholic couples who perhaps have not fully investigated their own motives or fears."

I think this is true. NFP is not "Catholic birth control" despite what the nun in flip flops told me (seriously). My wife and I are expecting our fifth child, and our oldest is 6. We are a bit overwhelmed (understatement), have limited economic resources, so we expect to use NFP to get us into a good position to emotionally and financially to discuss having other children -- which we are open to. We aren't using NFP to buy a bigger house or new car, and we will not be using NFP to upgrade our cable service (which we already cancelled), but I do believe that when NFP is used correctly it does strengthen a marriage. It has done so for us.

We should not discourage NFP simply becomes some misuse it. It would be the same as discouraging book reading because some people throw books at people, and a few of those people have been killed. That's not what books are for, and NFP is not contraception.

"We should not discourage NFP simply becomes some misuse it. It would be the same as discouraging book reading because some people throw books at people, and a few of those people have been killed. That's not what books are for, and NFP is not contraception."I agree with you about that. Even if people are doing nfp with a "contraceptive mentality", They are in a state of grace and the action of grace will help strengthen their marriage and help them grow in virtue, etc. If God's will for them is to have more children they are more likely to be open to that than if they were contracepting. Hang in there Brent, they grow up faster than you can imagine right now!

I find it difficult to see how a couple using NFP with a "contraceptive mentality" could be in a state of grace, objectively speaking. I suppose you are correct that at least by using NFP, as opposed to artificial contraception, they may be more open to accepting whatever grace is available to them (along the lines of BXVI's "prophylactic" comment that raised a kerfuffle a while back - that at least by using a prophylactic, while still objectively immoral, a person with aids was showing some concern for others that may move him in the right direction).

There are a lot of levels of sanctity in life. A person can have a contraceptive mentality and still be trying their best to do God's will. I know several couples who after having two children were using contraception and stopped because they returned to the church. They had to to slowly grow in virtue and grace to see that God wanted them to have more children. They both have large families now. God lead them along. I don;t think you will find an examination of conscience anywhere that would ever say that using nfp with a contraceptive mentality is a mortal sin. Its too relative a thing. I've only ever read that it can be a venial sin.

I think it would be very, very rare, (although I suppose theologically possible) for a couple to use NFP in a contraceptive manner because it requires so much self-discipline and self-denial by the couple.

Think about it-- the wife must abstain when her hormones most desire to be united sexually to her spouse, and the husband must control his sexual urges should they fall on fertile days. Both spouses would need to exhibit much self-denial and self control to do this on a long term basis, which would require a lot of motivation. It is rare to see NFP couples with 1-2 children. In fact, when we were engaged the NFP couple doing the NFP classes had 5 kids and I was like, "I don't think those inclined to use the BC pill are going to be convinced of the "effectiveness" of NFP!"

And regarding the state of grace--- I received this information from a priest--- it is not possible to use NFP and be in a state of mortal sin. Hence, any couple using NFP in a theologically "contraceptive mentality" would at MOST be guilty of venial sin. They would be in a state of grace, no matter what their motivation for using NFP, including selfishness. (It is also theologically possible to "lust" after your spouse, I suppose, too-- venial sin?) Signed, Ira

"That does not speak of a great trust in God, does it? What about Divine Providence? Is God not capable of taking care of the problems we as human parents cannot?"

Please remember, we are not Providentialists. We are Catholics and we believe that we cooperate with God in bringing His plans to fruition.

Trusting in God does not mean, for Catholics, blindly accepting whatever is placed before us as God's will. Prayer and prayerful discernment should be at the heart of using NFP to postpone or achieve pregnancy.

It is also important to remember that the Catholic Church is an enormous community with a large variety of nuance. It is necessary to be "as generous as the Church is generous." Which basically means giving people the same benefit of the doubt that the CDF and Pope Benedict XVI give to people.

I disagree with your assessment that NFP is merely "tolerated" by the Church. Again, be as generous as the Church is generous. The just/grave/serious reasons behind a family choosing to use NFP to postpone/avoid pregnancy will differ from couple to couple and THAT is what is meant by "broader and perhaps more liberal." One couple may psychologically be unable to handle more than 3 children for what ever reason. I used to work in child care - I have no problem handling my current 5 and any more that may come along. However due to some unfortunate financial circumstances, we are currently practicing NFP (7 people in a 3 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath house, 1 minivan that we all barely fit into, and currently no resources to upgrade either house or vehicle)

Perhaps, it is God's will that we learn self-control and self discipline by working with the cycle of fertility that he created in women's bodies and prayerfully discussing with him what direction we are to go in. This is at the heart of NFP.

I guess being able to adequately feed and truly well-educate the children I have, and actually staying alive and healthy to parent them, is not grave enough reason for me to choose not to have more, according to you and most of your commenters. To which I respond: go jump off a bridge. God and I have made our peace, so keep your busybody nose out of it. Couples who are willing and able to obey the Church in this matter should not have to face attack from nitpicking, nattering nabobs.

I guess being able to adequately feed and truly well-educate the children I have, and actually staying alive and healthy to parent them, is not grave enough reason for me to choose not to have more, according to you and most of your commenters. To which I respond: go jump off a bridge. God and I have made our peace, so keep your busybody nose out of it. Couples who are willing and able to obey the Church in this matter should not have to face attack from nitpicking, nattering nabobs.

No idea why mine posted twice, but what happened to the posts after mine? Someone posts Church documents and Papal statements that prove your opinion is worse than tripe, and you delete them? Very interesting.....

PS I think something was wrong perhaps with the system here for some of them.... for it was deleted...and would not stick when tried again...(not that the moderator was deleting it -it seemed to just not work right at those moments)

My devout Catholic friend gave birth to 11 children in 14 years. After the arrival of their 10th child, she told her husband that she thought if she had any more children she might not be able to handle it emotionally, and this is a mother who is extraordinarily loving to her children and has brought them up in the faith. She and her husband could not decide if adopting NFP was the right thing to do. The next year she had her 11th child. It was at that point, that they made the decision to begin using NFP because my friend's emotional well-being began to be affected. Many of her friends, including myself, pitched in to help her in whatever way we could.

She and her husband have practiced NFP since the birth of their last child five years ago and have had no further pregnancies. I cannot believe that there is any person on this earth who is so lacking in compassion that they would argue that NFP is sinful in her case or not in teaching with the faith, especially in light of the helpful comments on this post which link to the exact Church teaching on NFP, that its character is INTRINSICALLY different from artificial conception. Exactly how much emotional suffering should my friend have had to undergo before some of the more judgmental commenters here, and the original poster (who NEVER had to deal with such decisions because of her choice to sterilized)would relent and practice the love and compassion that we are commanded to by Jesus Christ.

My friend's youngest child is now 5 year old, and my friend is on emotional solid ground once again. She is considering, as she herself is nearing the end of her fertile years, having more children, because she believes that she will be able to cope.

If we are actually going to be perfectly honest about what the church teaches, we should recognize that my friend presents the perfect example of why they Church doesn't just tolerate it, but firmly embraces NFP.

I would urge the original poster to consider well the advice of the people who have commented that she not take it upon herself to judge the reasons people embrace NFP. One could safely argue that my friend and her husband have used NFP to avoid contraception. But one would be completely offbase to say that what they did was not in TOTAL accord with the catechism, nor that they were seeking to avoid fulfilling their duty to be fruitful and multiply. It does little good to keep having children if their mother becomes increasingly incapable of caring for them.

232. The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses' special participation in God's work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.

233. Concerning the “methods” for practising responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion[521]. The latter in particular is a horrendous crime and constitutes a particularly serious moral disorder[522]; far from being a right, it is a sad phenomenon that contributes seriously to spreading a mentality against life, representing a dangerous threat to a just and democratic social coexistence[523].

Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms[524]: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality [525] and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples[526]. On the other hand, the same reasons of an anthropological order justify recourse to periodic abstinence during times of the woman's fertility[527]. Rejecting contraception and using natural methods for regulating births means choosing to base interpersonal relations between the spouses on mutual respect and total acceptance, with positive consequences also for bringing about a more human order in society.

234. ---The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone.---

This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. The intervention of public authorities within the limits of their competence to provide information and enact suitable measures in the area of demographics must be made in a way that fully respects the persons and the freedom of the couple. Such intervention may never become a substitute for their decisions[529]. All the more must various organizations active in this area refrain from doing the same.

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

PS I think something was wrong perhaps with the system here for some of them.... for it was deleted...and would not stick when tried again...(not that the moderator was deleting it -it seemed to just not work right at those moments)

Okay, good - Kevin, thank you for putting a name. Yes, I did delete the earlier ones. Why, Jennifer asks? Well, it is my blog after all! I think the posting of all those quotes is not really accomplishing anything and takes up a lot of space. Post a link and let people go to it if they desire.

If you - Kevin, Jennifer, or anyone else - would like to put together a max 1500-word essay making a point by referring to specific paragraphs, go ahead and email it to me and I'll consider posting it as a guest commentary. But just cutting and pasting from documents in the comments here seems pointless. All of the Church documents stress "serious" reasons.

Well -- I disagree. It gives readers the quotes to look at who are not apt to go hunt down links.

Sorry not so much time for essays but I am sure you could get some dialog with say Dr. Smith or some such author. There has been plenty written on the subject by very good authors. (oh And I did say "K" at the end of most I put there).

Of course one needs "serious reasons". I note such all the time when I bring the matter up. Such is the Teaching of the Church. Those serious reasons do not though need to be "your going to die next week" serious -but they do need to be serious (not "I am a car collector and can not have more for that reason"). The Church expresses in those documents and elsewhere that it is up to the couple before God to judge if they reasons are serious or not (though advice can be good from say a good Priest etc). Not for anyone else. All sorts of things can come up in life...

So Kevin, you do admit that there are objective criteria for determining whether a reason is serious -- according to you, "I am a car collector and can not have more for that reason" is not a serious reason. It is not just "up to the couple," as you say.

And in this so serious a matter -- the creating of human life -- shouldn't a list of objective criteria be welcomed and even expected by a couple? It's not as if the issue is, "what color should we paint our living room." The question is, should we engage in the conjugal act only when we know human life will not result.

Yes of course to the first part. Such is the Teaching of the Church ..see for example the documents I noted ..such as from Pope Benedict XVI

There are various objective criteria -namely it need be a serious reason (and as the CCCC notes not selfish) and it needs to be moral-good means (periodic continence) but while one can give various general examples like -- financial, medical etc one cannot give some list for life throws all sorts of things at one and the circumstances of each couple are going to vary -even within different periods of their marriage. Ones conscience is to be one that is formed by the Teachings of the Church and one must make a judgment of conscience as one must in many things in life. And one is to make use of the virtues ..as one has them and if need be even seek counsel (which can be part of prudence). Indeed as the Church notes:

"234. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]." (Compendium of Social Doctrine).

I will not begin to comment on the Church's actual teachings because I feel that it has been done quite competently in the comments above. I will not disagree that the intent of NFP is actually where sin can arise. I also won't comment on some of the discussion regarding the Holy Mother and charting. As a mother of 4 daughters currently who must teach them about their cycles as they become old enough and expand their knowledge as they mature, I think it is silly to say that our mother Mary would not have done so in a fabulous and modest way.

What I actually do want to comment on though are the people that keep saying things to the effect of..."Don't take this so personally" "Defensive!" What is important to note while discussing this is that most women are already using NFP contrary to the recommendations of their female doctors. If there are medical complications, then likely it is against the recommendations of their general practitioner and specialist as well. Quite likely at least some of their family members consider them old fashioned, reckless, stupid, naive, or some combination thereof and have told them so. A great number of their friends feel the same way as their family members and want to discuss it. Of course we know that most of society, sadly even their fellow Catholics at church and school, have similar feelings. With all of this, now they must wonder if that couple who made a comment to them about why they currently only have 4 (or 1 or 0) even believes that they are using NFP or should use NFP. Of course people are going to take this personally. This is the heart of a marriage and the people that I know that use NFP (sadly not too many) use it believing that they are following Church teaching to the best of their ability, to the extent that the CCCC and many, many writings of the Popes tell them they may. They are women who wish they had 6 instead of that 4, but have had 2 miscarriages. They are women who have recently had a premature baby that cost the family a great deal more money than they have available...is this being selfish? I guess my point is that I find it obvious that opting not to have a child to fit in a dress does not fit into church teaching. Whether you read the warning as serious, grave, just, it really doesn't matter. To me, there are very good reasons that the church hasn't made a laundry list. I know people that say - out loud - that the people that are now in debt due to that premature baby...well they aren't trusting God. The family that used NFP to become pregnant while one spouse was in school was irresponsible, but then used NFP to avoid when the mother had issues is being selfish. I am beginning to ramble, but I think the point is that life is not a list. We certainly can stray from something that should be truly holy into sin. But, in the culture we currently live in, one wholly devoted to a contraceptive culture, wouldn't we be better served using these discussions to explain that the Church, in fact, loves women? That She wants her families to be happy, whole, and healthy if it is God's will? And, that we have been given a beautiful teaching that should draw our marriages closer to God? Then teach them how to do that??

I think that the history of Church teaching on women and the vocation of marriage and motherhood is positive and says that the Church loves women. It is the modernist interpretation of Church teaching which gives it a "repressive" slant. I don't think NFP and Theology of the Body add anything to the beauty of the centuries of teaching that went before.

We've lost the sense of the beauty, dignity, and holiness of the large family. Why not teach THAT?! Teaching such a thing emphasizes the pro-life, "pro-woman" attitude of the Church. And teaching modesty and marital chastity would draw marriages closer to God.

Custom-made Altar Antependia

Click the photo and visit the page for information on purchasing altar antependia.

Translate

Catholic Contraception?

Despite the defensiveness of the promoters, the occasional critic does speak against NFP. And if one looks carefully at what the critics say, there is much to be considered. Michael Malone's book exposes many logical fallacies in the arguments of NFP promoters, and asks critical questions that, to my knowledge, NFP promoters cannot and have not answered.

My NFP book is now available!

This is a compilation of my blog posts on NFP, along with some extra commentary and explanation. Click on the image to go to Amazon and see the full description. Available on Kindle, too.

Zeal For Thy House is available!

This is a compilation of my posts on the liturgy - liturgical abuse, music in the liturgy, the Novus Ordo, and the Traditional Latin Mass. "Glimmers of Hope" are also included to show that progress IS being made! Click on the image to order at Amazon. It's available on Kindle, too.

Contact Me

Follow by Email

Followers

Total Pageviews

About Me

My husband and I live in Baker City, Oregon. I care deeply about the liturgy, and pray ardently for the "reform of the reform". I think we've strayed far from our Catholic identity over the last 50 years, and we need to return to the traditional teachings of the Church in order to regain lost ground.